I have not examined in detail the Bishop of Rome's words about the death of Lady Diana Mandela, though I do not doubt on close examination they will prove shallow to atrocious.
I am old enough to remember when Nelson Mandela was in jail because of terrorist activity, though if you asked the average illiterate teenager of today I doubt they would know what a terrorist is in the first place.
I also remember Mandela was the head of a communist (read my lips: communist) organisation, and that his second wife Winnie was for years at the head of a group of gangbanger thugs murdering around under the implicit protection of the Great Icon, who needed an awful lot of persuasion to finally decide to dump her, his new status of messiah of the liberal masses not being really compatible with the murderous harridan.
In addition, one cannot forget this is the man responsible for plunging South Africa in such a state of corruption, violence and economy-hampering affirmative action that you wonder whether any fool, picked randomly from the madhouse, would not have done better, only because he would not have needed to enrich countless members of his vast clan.
Potentially murderous terrorist. Communist. Complicit in mafia-like activity. Corrupt or conniving with corruption. This is not the stuff of a Christian hero.
Yes, Mandela did some things very right, but I wonder whether he had any alternative. It was undoubtedly wise to steer the country on a path of reconciliation, but the alternative would have been for the Whites – vastly superior in training, wealth, armament, and discipline – to massacre the Blacks like it's going out of fashion and go back to square… minus three, so the open confrontation and official settling of bills never had a chance; something, this, that Mandela must have known every day of his life.
Better, far better to play Gandhi and enrich the entire “entourage” in the process.
I know, I know. There is still merit in making wise decisions. Not many communist terrorists make them after all. I'll give him that. But come on, 27 years of jail generally help a lot in developing this kind of wisdom. Mandela had the wisdom to choose icon status and vast embezzling for his clan over fight to the death, which – he knew that very well – would have been swift. Wise, yes. But so extraordinary? People who marry for the third time at 80 tend not to look for martyrdom for the cause.
It is now being widely publicised Mandela was also – what do you expect from a communist terrorist? – responsible for a U-turn on abortion. Truly, this is Lady Diana with the little black dress.
Has Francis taken account of it? Where did he live before the early Nineties? I remember a lot about Mandela pre-icon status, and he is a couple of decades older than I.
Oh well. Critical thinking is unfit for this age. Shameless stirring of feel-good emotions is what the mob demands, as when people stop believing in God their need to feel good with themselves – another manifestation of extreme self-centredness – becomes extreme.
Francis knows it. He knows how they feel. He probably – not being a monster of depth – even thinks like them. He is the Pope for our times: shallow, populist, addicted to popularity, willing to sing with the secular choir, and eager to be approved by the wrong crowd. Nelson Mandela died! Let us feel good everybody!
When Francis meets His maker, he will be hailed as the White Lady Diana.
By the same communists, atheists, abortionist and assorted libtards now praising Nelson Mandela.
P. S. Mandela did not bring Apartheid to end. Not a bit. Decades of economic sanctions led by the baddy, baddy Western States did. Learn your history if you haven't lived it.
The Pope is liked by 70% of the atheists.
A joke, you said?
“No”, or (according how you read the line above) “quite”.
The strategy is working. At least for the atheists.
Two very interesting interventions about Francis’ latest (demolition) effort, Evangelium Gaudii.
The first is from Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey. The man should have had a text editor (who would have told him EG is not an encyclical letter), but for the rest seems a very smart guy, with a solid grasp of (real) Catholicism. Napolitano finds that Francis’ effort “reveals a disturbing ignorance about economics”.
I wholeheartedly agree. The more so, because the disturbing ignorance about economics is – though Napolitano doesn’t say that – the fruit of his disturbing ignorance about Catholicism.
The second is from Fox News, and it is interesting because it shows that even among the mainstream media (Fox News is now obviously so) there are those who have seen the game, and say so. Just as an example, take this:
In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”
This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.
The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.
I invite you to read both articles (the first link works strangely on my desktop, hope it will be fine), but here I would to reflect shortly on what is happening.
Jorge Bergoglio made his career in a rather provincial environment, dominated by populist rhetoric. It worked well for him as long as he remained in the motherland of Peronism, and would probably work well pretty much everywhere else in South America. When Jorge Bergoglio became Pope Francis, he thought it was business as usual and went on in the accustomed way. He is obviously unable to see his limits, and it is evident he feels he can give lessons in the way of dealing with the economy to the entire planet. The vastly publicised criticism shows this is not the case. The world has listened attentively to what he had to say, and found he would have been better off if he had kept his mouth shut. I think this is going to be the second very brutal awakening after the disaster of the interviews to Civilta’ Cattolica and Scalfari. Can’t wait for all the Monsignori explaining how the Pope did not mean to say what he has said.
The ugly truth is that a shallow and petty man is made Pope and thinks the world will be his new Argentina, but it clearly doesn’t work. Now if you make a clown of yourself, you will be told. More and more, the limits of this man are emerging in what can be appropriately called “disturbing” measure.
As I have already written, he will either have to change his tune or be buried in ridicule.
The world is not Argentina.
In the hope this may give you some slight consolation - or at least a laugh; though the problem is very serious - in the midst of the antics of the Bishop of Rome, I thought it fitting to report about a layman styling himself as a priest, a Desmond Tutu, certainly known to those of you who appreciate comedy. …
In the last weeks the interventions of prelates have multiplied, demanding that the Church be “pastoral” in the sense of bending the rules.
In another post I have asked whether Francis is evil or stupid. It appears to me the same question applies to many other prelates.
Ed Peters has a ruthless examination of the extremely worrying (and provocative, and heretical) words of Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri. The latter is the new Secretary General of the Synod of Bishop, and thus one of the key people of Francis in the huge mess that is brewing.
Following the barrage of “pastoral sensitivity” started from “who am I to judge”-Francis – who suggested on the famous aeroplane some kind of “solution” would have to be found for public adulterers; for the record, he did not mean that they stop being public adulterers… – and after the vocal vomiting of German prelates and Maradiaga's ominous slogans about “less Rome”, Archbishop Baldisseri is the latest one to shell Catholicism with arguments of such stupid naïveté that one has no doubt he has the ear of Bishop Francis.
Please visit the link, and realise that what is going on here – not merely being vaguely imagined, but being executed as we speak, by creating a climate of impending, inevitable “change” – is the demolition of sound Catholic doctrine under the pretext of pastoral sensitivity, to be applied in every desired “particular” situation.
“Pastoral sensitivity” can't make what is wrong right, otherwise it's simply heresy. The idea that rules only apply in a theoretical sphere of lofty sermons, whilst the individual circumstances allow to de facto ignore them – very recognisable in ++ Baldisseri's words – is, asEd Peters points out, pure Antinomianism; that is, the belief that in the end God's rules don't count.
Baldisseri is also a typical Modernist in that he confuses the gullible Catholics (an awful lot of those) into believing that as the doctrine of the Church isn't being officially changed everything must be fine, and we are merely being “pastoral” and evaluating the “individual circumstances”. Deception, confusion, and claim of orthodoxy in the thinking whilst aggressively pushing heresy in the concrete action is the very mark of the Modernist. Francis, Marx, Voelki, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, & Co. all bear this mark and make of it ready use.
That in this way the rules become an optional, and the entire edifice of God's Church merely a collection of suggestions to be followed in ideal conditions, the gullible – again: the vast majority of them – will not see. They will sing their stupid sugary songs and thank God he has – as they believe, being rather stupid – given us Francis, the man so humbly massacring 2,000 years of Catholicism.
I fear the worst. Not the worst in the sense that the Pope will (try to) proclaim an heretical dogma, or the like; but rather in the sense that he will give licence to single Bishops' Conferences to do as they please under the guise of being “pastoral”. The constant public messages from people near the Pope (Marx, Maradiaga, now Baldisseri) and the announced extraordinary Synod make it very probable the Synod will allow the local churches to have that kind of autonomy that, even if it is not officially doctrinal, is certainly free to instaurate a praxis going against the doctrine.
“You all know the rules – Francis will say – but please feel free to be pastoral in the ways more fitting to the particular circumstances in which you operate”. No more than this is necessary to devastate the Church not only concerning communion for public adulterers – the first step, that will be immediately taken by the German, Swiss and Austrian bishops to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer – but one day in many other matters, following the ruthless logic of heresy. If communion is allowed to adulterers, why should the “blessing” of their “union” denied to perverts? If the blessing, why not the sacrament? Is communion not given, they will say, to the divorced and remarried?
The greatest wave of Modernism since its inception will, if you ask me, assault the church not in the form of doctrinal innovation, but of “pastoral care”. Demolition on the sly, and whilst being very humble.
May God have mercy on this bunch of despicable saboteurs and fifth columns.
Pray for the Pope, that he may come to his senses.
And pray God that He may soon free the Church from him if he doesn't.
The celebration of Francis as a marketing tool has now found an echo in the Boston Globe. The competition is said to be “envious” of a Pope that is able – and alas, all too willing – to accommodate everyone.
The most Jewish Pope, says the Rabbi, and who can contradict him. Different from our chap, who has the bad habit of thinking before he opens his mouth in public, says the Mormon. Hey, he even makes “pranks” (he doesn’t; but journalists must write fast and create a story), and is so different from the Presbyterians (who are the Presbyterians again? Ah, now I remember…). What a revolutionary change from the serious men of the past. So cool!
“At times, he seems to yak on about whatever comes to his mind, just as you and I do”, says the journalist. How wonderful! And by the way: no, I don’t do it. I don’t know about you, but when I open my mouth I always know what I am saying and why. A bad habit they taught me as a child. Uncool, I know. But they said only the stupid do otherwise. A promising red nose career, ruined.
The competition will now have to start thinking about countermeasures. A Twitter contest perhaps? Having Welby dance Tango? Should Mrs Schori present the next Academy Award ceremony?
A Pope betrays his role by being the clown of the world. The world finds him entertaining, and approves of him. Therefore, say the secular media, the chap is really good. Others will have to learn his marketing tricks.
The Most Jewish Pope.
What do you want more?
Obama truly loves Francis. Why shouldn't he? Francis is so juvenile that he can wonder why the planet is more interested in the Dow Jones than in the death of a homeless. I think he forgot the time when he had to earn a living, or was worried about his pension, or knew – if he ever knew – that the stock exchanges are the best thermometer of the world economy, and people tend to be more interested in them than in the next bum drinking himself to death. This is the usual (very stupid) rhetoric about the individual destinies, according to which we should forbid vehicular traffic, because even one life of a child saved is more important than all the cars in the world.
Not even six years old stoop to such low levels of reasoning. They perfectly well understand that the world is interested in global events and the death of their grandma, devastating in itself, will not make world news. Everyone knows grandmas die at some point; bums tend to drink or drug themselves to death (which is why you must never ever hand them money), car rowdies tend to die of car accidents, & Co. Everyone knows it, only Francis doesn't. Or else in his relentless quest for popularity he has stooped so low one cannot even see him anymore.
In Francis' world, people should wake up in the morning listening to tale of violent deaths in Africa; then move on to the problem of youth unemployment (the biggest problem on earth, remember!) followed by the loneliness of the old people (the second biggest). At 11 on the dot we would have the situation of the favelas in Buenos Aires, where we would be informed that Rosario La Paz, a small-time criminal, has been found in a ditch with a bullet in his head. Rio is on with similar news – but the chap is called Joao Salazar – at 2 PM, Bombay (I still say “Bombay”) at 4 PM, closely followed by Calcutta (names difficult to remember at that point). The world being rather vast, I can't imagine there would be any time for the Dow Jones, but again small things like the world economy do not concern Francis, so everything is fine.
The stunt about the dead bum that should be more important news than the Dow Jones is truly like Francis: populist, Peronist, juvenile, and fit for the stupid. No surprise that Obama's crowd and Barry himself would salute it.
Francis is accused of being a Marxist, but I doubt even Marx would have said something as infantile as that. Francis is worse than Marx. Marx just wasn't the Pope.
In the meantime, Obama rejoices and the liberals have another field day.
Congratulations, Holy Father.
And do you go to school already?
I seem to notice a new turn of phrase around: “men who have sex with men”, short: MSM.
Whilst it is always difficult to know what moves libtards to always new stupid expressions – I struggle to follow the ever-expanding series of initials for faggots, dykes, trannies and assorted pervs – in this case it seems to me the reason for this Neo-libtardism is evident:
1. To suggest that a man might have sex with another man and not be a faggot.
2. To avoid the use of the word “gay”, thankfully now commonly used as mockery.
All those libtards are either practicing perverts, or think there's nothing like “perversion” even if they “happen” to be straight. Therefore, they must try to create the legend that a man might be “bi”, or – as they also say, hilariously – “curious”.
Erm, no. Men like women. Not dykes, nor faggots, nor strange surgeon freaks. Women.
I truly wonder whether the people who use words like “MSM” would mount their dog (MMD), or sleep with their sister (MSS) or their mother (MSMo), or their aunt (MSA) out of “curiosity”. I do not want to know the answer.
These bunch of perverts or aspiring such are trying to sell perversion as another form of normality, and to persuade you it is even compatible with being normal. Their aim is to persuade the mainstream idiot that a “gay person” is not even “different” in any perceivable way from the “normality”.
I truly wonder how many of these perverted retards produce faggots and dykes, or whatever might be in the middle. I mean, what has remained of masculinity in a man even thinking in this way? How can he raise a normal boy, or a sane girl? Is not a man who cannot find anything wrong in a pervert the very epitome of one, though he might not be practicing his perversion? Which sane person would want to have such a father? And this is supposed to be the generally accepted thinking?
Beware of words. They are very dangerous.
Oh, those poor, poor sodomites, don't you feeeel for them? They are so discriminated against, “judged” by an unjust society (I know: this is a judgment…) and driven to suicide by the “bullying” of those who call them… faggots! Which obviously is what they are, but it's so cruel, so cruuuel! To think that they are so good!
(Now please, as you say this, stop a moment and savour the feeling of smug superiority; the squatting on the moral high ground; the enjoyment of one's own advanced spiritual state. Then prepare to wake up to reality….).
Alas, it turns out the “good faggot” is, in the majority, rather an aspiring killing machine, and willingly so.
Who would, knowing that he has contracted a disease that could be deadly in others, expose them to this very dangerous disease only to increase his own sexual pleasures? Two faggots out of three, that's who.
Notice here that the percentage mentioned is not of those who abandon themselves to disgusting acts of sodomy, but of those who do not wear condoms as they do so. Full knowing they are HIV positive. Merely to increase their own perverted pleasure. Of course they are supposed not to commit acts of sodomy in the first place, but this is an act of sodomy (alas, not a criminal offence anymore almost everywhere) with the addiction of what must be, surely, a criminal offence in many Countries!
It boggles the mind. It squarely makes of fags the enemy number one of fags, their own willed target for potentially deadly infections. Gaystapo as it breathes and sodomises.
What people still seem not to understand (because they don't know jack of God, sin, or the devil) is how damaged the soul of an homosexual already is. Whilst not every homosexual acts with faggoty behaviour to satisfy his perversion, unless we understand the gravity of this truly satanical perversion we wil not be able to understand its consequences. Only people firmly in the hand of the devil can be so astonishingly, diabolically self-centred as to put not even their own pleasure, but merely its maximum enjoyment at a premium over other people's health and perhaps life.
I do not know whether Fags hate the humanity at large, but there can be no doubt only self-hate and hate of the other fag can drive people to such level of depraved cruelty. Only Satan's hand could deform a soul to such an extent of dehumanising use of other people's body.
The Nazi doctor who performed cruel experiments on his Jewish victims might, perhaps, have deluded himself he is advancing the progress of humanity. He also did not have any personal relationship with his victim. But the HIV-positive faggot consciously exposing others at the risk of infection perfectly well knows he is only advancing the cause of his maximum pleasure, and must have at least a fleeting personal relationship with the man (oh well…) whose life he is putting at risk for no other reason than the most perverted, most short-lived of advantages.
Scratch the Sodomite, and you will see the monster. It is in the logic of Satan's work, and it is a master accomplishment of the same Satan to have persuaded so many that with the act of sodomy the faggot, rather than Christ, is the lamb that was slain.
People have no idea of what sin is anymore. You tell them sin is what offends God – and therefore sodomy, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, is one of the greatest offences imaginable – and they look at you incredulous, lost, or in utter mockery. They also have no idea of who Satan is, or what he can do to us. To them, everything is good until someone gets hurt. Unless it is a sphyncter, of course. Or an unborn baby.
God might not hate fags, though he most certainly hates their faggotry.
But boy, do they hate each other.
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new "sexual orientation": the "minor-attracted".
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this "orientation" should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives.